Again, new videomaterial of Wong Shun Leung

[forever young]

like I said ...you dont understand me

im responding in part to all posts , not just yours,... your ego is in your way ; )

ego in the way???? personally i think instead of answering questions you are attacking me which while this is fine with me smacks of YOUR ego in the way for example it seems youy cant admit
1, have no answers to simple questions
2, are presenting an Ad hominem argument See Here for reference

you are right i dont understand you and your apparent inability to hold a logical discussion without attacking me????

i could for example have asked if you might be good enough to explain

vt is only training against vt ..vt doesnt fight vt..so we arent really confined to any vt rules just concepts and tactics that have no referee incase of infractions like I use a knife/s because 4 friends showed up to help you try to hurt me

This and its relevance to anything???? eg Knife?? multiple attack??? referee????
i asked none of these things and i fail to see how it has a bearing on ANYTHING being discussed

...in training one should adopt a role to allow for this training so vt can function beyond stalemate ..it also opens your eyes to being on the recieving end and options

crap and meaningless

...going in a circle back to you being the vt attacker ...etc... best of both worlds...

going in circles??? you seem to be and may i ask at what point do you see yourself being a vt defender

I always look for ways to hit /attack my students from outside

Outside??? outside what ?? a bar?? their house?? outside lines??? and should you really be attacking/hitting your students or is there perhaps a more intelligent way to teach/learn??

..many guys ive fought/hit, just start fights with simple charging attempted or actual wrist grabs [ ime ]

Well while only YOU can comment on your experiences in mine its the opposite whereby people start swinging for the head WHILE charging forwards, no wrist grabs oh and while were at it exactly how many times has this happened or are the 'many guys' merely training partners ?

so I do too for my students , if being the 'brawler' for sparring [ roles ].

Holy hell!!!!! so what you are saying is you LARP??????? oh god then imho you are beyond saving (oh and who 'plays' boxer/grappler/thai fighter/brawler and what is their qualifications/experience within their 'other art'

A few guys Ive hit have come at me head down bobbing to grab me but I hit them full force with a vertical palm on top of the head ...

so what??? the guys i play with would simply ignore a "Vertical Palm on the top of the Head" because they would have enough forward momentum to keep coming, or are you implying your palms would 'break cocconuts'????

so bobbing is good for taking the 'legal' face away for boxing , but I still hit the head and they stagger backwards holding their head etc for followups or hitting their mates rucking too..

Get better quality sparring partners as it sounds like you are just beating up on students who are not at your level. Or can you do any of this against someone you consider senior/better than you? because i dont believe you can and imo as you made the claim the onus is on you to prove what you say (youtube anyone -- nah diddnt think so, let me guess....no camera/are not computer literate enough/cant be bothered/ have nothing to prove )

[chisauking]

wing chun fly sez: My question is do you not think as 'practitioners of xyz' we are doing exactly the same? i mean based even on this thread alone the use for example of bob/slip/weave is frowned upon, yet in doing so we are restricting ourselves to 'wing chun rules of engagement' (which is as it should be - when i train wc i train wc equally when i train bjj i train bjj - i save the experimenting for throwdowns/meetups/private sparring) which is realistically why MOST wing chun practitioners become good at fighting/defending against other wing chun guys playing within the same 'rules of engagement'

The main distinction between 'games' like boxing and wing chun is the 'mindset' of the training & goal. Games have self-imposed rules, whereas the only rules within wing chun & its training method is the limitation of its practitioners. The good wing chun practitioners will train with NO rules in mind, whilst the boxer will have subconsciously embedded rules\limits in their mind. The way you 'think' and train will ultimately effect the development of your fighting skills & mindset.

There are no kicking, eye poking, choking, etc., etc. in boxing, because it's against the rules. There are no rules against using bobbing, weaving, slip in wing chun. Sifu WSL didn't use those tactics not because it's against the rules in the rule book, but becuase he personally didn't feel it was efficient....based on his comprehension of the system, and his life fighting experiences. There's a clear distinction.

Just as if you think doing a triple jump & putting on a pair of boxing gloves before punching your opponent is efficient & direct, whose to say your wrong? It certainly isn't written in the wing chun 'rulebook'.

But then, if sifu WSL didn't do a triple jump & put on a pair of boxing gloves before punching his opponent, people would accuse him of 'restricting to playing within the same rules of engagement'.

[guy b.]

bloody hell this is gay. Its like a train spotters convention.

[forever young]

The main distinction between 'games' like boxing and wing chun is the 'mindset' of the training & goal. Games have self-imposed rules, whereas the only rules within wing chun & its training method is the limitation of its practitioners. The good wing chun practitioners will train with NO rules in mind, whilst the boxer will have subconsciously embedded rules\limits in their mind. The way you 'think' and train will ultimately effect the development of your fighting skills & mindset.

thanks for taking time to try and answer the q's
if i may ask you a few questions based on your post.
You mention mindset, ok so in chisau the mindset is what exactly? to kill/maim? it should be in my opinion to develop skill and infact to try and develop 'skill' should be the mindset throughout your wing chun practices yes/no ?? i would ask you to read This then perhaps tell me whether you agree/disagree
Next you mention that boxers will somehow be 'preprogrammed' to follow certain rules but would you agree that a boxers main aim is to damage/ko their opponent while taking as little damage as possible themselves? agree/disagree?
and that the assumption that a boxer (or any other person/art) will be rendered bound to imaginary rules in a real altercation is a dangerous assumption on your part and how may i ask did you come up with this assumption?
and if my previous question re:wing chun ruleset is true then are we not at risk of the same thing (perhaps people trying to chisau while fighting or adheering to a horse stance when it is clearly wrong? as examples)

There are no kicking, eye poking, choking, etc., etc. in boxing, because it's against the rules. There are no rules against using bobbing, weaving, slip in wing chun.

well again this certainly forms part of my argument that if this isnt against the 'rules' of wing chun then why would people tell you not to do it and infact would it not be part of the system? for example to me the system has a clear and progressive syllabus and anything outside that isnt part of the system (whether its useful or not is another story) see Here for my reference with regard to the syllabus and if you wouldnt mind tell me whether you agree/disagree and with what parts

Sifu WSL didn't use those tactics not because it's against the rules in the rule book, but becuase he personally didn't feel it was efficient....based on his comprehension of the system, and his life fighting experiences. There's a clear distinction.

But the story of the knee seems to contradict this in the sense that he obviously had no problem doing what he thought necessary to win fights and if he had found himself in the position where for whatever reason he had to adopt for example a bob or weave he would have done so WITHOUT hesitation.
To explain further Nino Bernardo once explained it like this ....my sifu (wsl) was a fighter!!! he loved to fight!!! and further more with the intelligence of the man he would have been good at fighting regardless of the system he used, because he could fight!.

Just as if you think doing a triple jump & putting on a pair of boxing gloves before punching your opponent is efficient & direct, whose to say your wrong? It certainly isn't written in the wing chun 'rulebook'.

well again if you agree with the idea that there is a syllabus to follow and the system is contained in the syllabus, then said syllabus is the 'rulebook' so to speak and the triple jump isnt in that syllabus i would argue it IS 'against the rules of the wing chun rulebook'

But then, if sifu WSL didn't do a triple jump & put on a pair of boxing gloves before punching his opponent, people would accuse him of 'restricting to playing within the same rules of engagement'.

again im not accusing anybody of anything other than what appears to be ignorance from mr gledhill im merely asking whether the statement

we NEVER train or apply our skills with a set of "rules of engagement"

is necessarily as true as would appear My question is do you not think as 'practitioners of xyz' we are doing exactly the same? (as boxers) i mean based even on this thread alone the use for example of bob/slip/weave is frowned upon, yet in doing so we are restricting ourselves to 'wing chun rules of engagement' which seems to me to have at least parrallels with 'boxing rules of engagement' in the sense that while participating in said activity we are behaving in a particular manner/way and should be trying to

[Ernie]

Funny thing is when you strip away all the BS there is very little difference between WSLVT and boxing [ different engine ,'' linear body mechanics '' and more tools in the tool chest ,,etc,,]

but in the way it's trained [ at least as I have been exposed to both many years of boxing and VT ]

good conditioning , quick footwork , hitting hard with both hands and all the supplemental training to support that [ double end ball, wall bag mitt work ]

and sparring , isolated to full contact

there is both slip and elevation change in both ,, we just don't bob and weave as habit [ might catch a knee in the face ] we do slip and cut angles to set up and evade shots

so if ones VT doesn't have at the very least these bare essentials ,, i could see were there would be questions on training methods and mindsets

there is much more then just chi sau

but please go on guys this has been a funny read !

[forever young]

Funny thing is when you strip away all the BS there is very little difference between WSLVT and boxing [ different engine ,'' linear body mechanics '' and more tools in the tool chest ,,etc,,]

but in the way it's trained [ at least as I have been exposed to both many years of boxing and VT ]

good conditioning , quick footwork , hitting hard with both hands and all the supplemental training to support that [ double end ball, wall bag mitt work ]

and sparring , isolated to full contact

there is both slip and elevation change in both ,, we just don't bob and weave as habit [ might catch a knee in the face ] we do slip and cut angles to set up and evade shots

so if ones VT doesn't have at the very least these bare essentials ,, i could see were there would be questions on training methods and mindsets

there is much more then just chi sau

but please go on guys this has been a funny read !

basically this is pretty much what ive been getting at all along and ill be honest i have recently met up with a friend of mine who had over 20 pro boxing matches and to be perfectly honest all these stereotypes of boxers is just plain crazy, he's a bloody lunatic, fit as a flea and strong as an ox

[Mr Punch]

This argument's getting pretty silly and further and further off the rather good vids originally posted, but... since I can't resist a good row...!

FY, you're talking conceptually: How can you say boxers are being restricted in their mindset when WCers restrict themselves to, say, not bobbing their heads etc.

Kevin (got the name!) is talking in terms of practice: i.e. In practice it's always chun vs chun... except that of course, it's not vs, you're helping each other to understand various basic principles, whereas in a fight, anything goes.

One thing is FY, "If you do this, I bob" is a technique. It's a simple technique, but it's a technique. The principle is getting out the way. Bobbing is boxing's concept for achieving that principle.

If you punch and I angle my body in a certain way, it's also a tech, for the same principle.

However, if I always bob or always angle my body in a certain way it's a training concept.

David et al are arguing that the technique of bobbing is a flawed concept in a non-sport situation.
You are arguing that not 'allowing' the tech of bobbing is a flawed concept of wing chun (the concept that 'We don't do that in wing chun'). This is a circular argument, and to some extent a straw man.

You appear to be automatically assigning rules to chun as a fighting system: it isn't. It's a collection of linked concepts to help your fighting skills.
To answer at least partially the question I've been asking too: the reason we restrict ourselves to these concepts is because we think wing chun has something to offer our fighting skills. When you get to biu jee, which is about discarding at least breaking out of the conventions you've put yourself in, you really start to make your fighting skills their own again, and not entrusting them so much to the wing chun 'system' anymore. Bruce Lee's cheesy bollocks (but right on the nail cheesy bollocks!) about a punch is a punch when you start training, then it becomes more than a punch, then it becomes a punch again, is classic wing chun.

You learn how to punch (SLT and drills from SLT). You learn different punches and different delivery systems (structures and footwork - around CK time). You remember that it's not important (but you can always rely on and go back to your basics, regain your basic structure etc when you need to) what you do providing you win (BJ).

The problem lies (apart from of course the perennial problem of testing yourself) in how long you are being sold the depths of wing chun, the secrets, the killer techniques (all non-resistant application from forms practice), before you are given the basics (live drills involving LSJC etc etc), and if you're given the next form before you've got the basics in live application, just because you've developed the ability to mimic the first moves...

All this is irrelevant of course, because you're trolling FY, aren't you? You're really just asking if any of these guys have any proof (ie the great video evidence) of what they're talking about it in a live setting... right? This isn't like MAP, you know, which unfortunately is buying more and more into the Bullshido hype. While I disagree with a few of Kevin's (or Ernie's etc) training ideas, and a few of the ways he says things, in general his posts make sense: the kind of sense you don't get from being a bull****ter or deluding yourself.

From what I remember of Kevin's posts he's done a fair bit of fairly full contact with no protection and with shoes etc... you ask him for vid, and he hasn't got any. Well, in the UK I've met a lot of people who do things that Bullshido-types really wouldn't believe if they saw it themselves or what. We have less-restrictive (and less useful! ) insurance laws and a national health service to abuse to pick up the pieces! In my training circles (since 1990) I've known concussions, broken noses, arms, fingers, toes, dislocations, and one guy who was stabbed through the leg (yes, through - a katana - stupid irresponsible practice that led to a change in the school's training style, but still, it happened). I don't have any vids of these things, but I daresay if you contacted these people and gave them some reason why they could dig out their medical records...! I used to do the same kind of practice, but I don't anymore... and I don't have any vid either.

You're also forgetting that a lot of these people have met each other, and furthermore have met a lot of quality teachers who would vouch for them, so unless you're challenging the likes of Gary Lam (which given your pointed questions to David Peterson earlier wouldn't necessarily surprise me) you don't really have a leg to stand on. Now of course, if you want to go the Bullshido way of saying that all of these people are deluded LARPers, that's fine, just don't be a board newb, quit your wing chun and **** off eh!

Oh, and welcome to KFO!

[Mr Punch]

LOL, 'busy' at work, took too long to write that post, load mroe written since I started!

LOL2 FY, you're Nino Bernardo's student! That explains the constant nitpicking... er, sorry, selfless attention to detail...! No offence to your line but I've met that loads of times on the net. I'm gonna have to seek some of you guys out when I'm in the UK sometime, you sound like a right riot!

But the story of the knee seems to contradict this in the sense that he obviously had no problem doing what he thought necessary to win fights and if he had found himself in the position where for whatever reason he had to adopt for example a bob or weave he would have done so WITHOUT hesitation.

So we ARE all on the same page! Of course Wong wouldn't have had a problem if he believed it to be more efficient. This story is about the hidebound moron chunners who were watching him (and had already lost themselves in the classical mess) more than WSL himself.

But as Chisauking and Ernie have said if you didn't believe his own words on the vid!), WSL didn't believe bobbing to be efficient.

I'm out of this mess

[forever young]

All this is irrelevant of course, because you're trolling FY, aren't you?

ya got me .....

[forever young]

LOL2 FY, you're Nino Bernardo's student! That explains the constant nitpicking... er, sorry, selfless attention to detail...!

ya got me x 2....

[sihing]

Wow, I was just reminded why I stay away from places like this To much talk, to much thinking, to much analysis, not enough practice....

James

[Matrix]

there is both slip and elevation change in both ,, we just don't bob and weave as habit [ might catch a knee in the face ] we do slip and cut angles to set up and evade shots.

This is a key distinction that needs to be understood on this topic, IMO.

Bill

[k gledhill]

forums eh ?

[k gledhill]

ego in the way???? personally i think instead of answering questions you are attacking me which while this is fine with me smacks of YOUR ego in the way for example it seems youy cant admit
1, have no answers to simple questions
2, are presenting an Ad hominem argument See Here for reference

you are right i dont understand you and your apparent inability to hold a logical discussion without attacking me????

i could for example have asked if you might be good enough to explain
This and its relevance to anything???? eg Knife?? multiple attack??? referee????
i asked none of these things and i fail to see how it has a bearing on ANYTHING being discussed
crap and meaningless going in circles??? you seem to be and may i ask at what point do you see yourself being a vt defender Outside??? outside what ?? a bar?? their house?? outside lines??? and should you really be attacking/hitting your students or is there perhaps a more intelligent way to teach/learn??Well while only YOU can comment on your experiences in mine its the opposite whereby people start swinging for the head WHILE charging forwards, no wrist grabs oh and while were at it exactly how many times has this happened or are the 'many guys' merely training partners ? Holy hell!!!!! so what you are saying is you LARP??????? oh god then imho you are beyond saving (oh and who 'plays' boxer/grappler/thai fighter/brawler and what is their qualifications/experience within their 'other art' so what??? the guys i play with would simply ignore a "Vertical Palm on the top of the Head" because they would have enough forward momentum to keep coming, or are you implying your palms would 'break cocconuts'???? Get better quality sparring partners as it sounds like you are just beating up on students who are not at your level. Or can you do any of this against someone you consider senior/better than you? because i dont believe you can and imo as you made the claim the onus is on you to prove what you say (youtube anyone -- nah diddnt think so, let me guess....no camera/are not computer literate enough/cant be bothered/ have nothing to prove )

in a nutshell you dont sound like you understnd VT so i keep it shallow and ad hominem as you put it ,because thats the level I want to go with trolls

[forever young]

in a nutshell you dont sound like you understnd VT so i keep it shallow and ad hominem as you put it ,because thats the level I want to go with trolls

one can only hope to achieve the level of enlightenment you have reached o mighty one, troll my ass, convinient to call me that rather than answer some simple questions which you obviously cant answer!!! altho ernie and mr punch thanks